Monthly Archives: July 2022

The conundrum facing the Republican Party is how to nudge former President Trump off the stage while keeping his voters. If the party snaps back to the libertarian pre-Trump party, that wont happen. What is wanted instead is a party that is progressive on economic issues and conservative on social ones. Thats the sweet spot in American politics, and if progressive conservatism sounds like an oxymoron thats because of an imperfect understanding of progressivism, conservatism, the GOP and America.

The partys leading statesmen were progressive conservatives: Abraham Lincoln for his invention of the American Dream, Theodore Roosevelt for his willingness to tackle corruption and Dwight Eisenhower for making peace with the New Deal. They knew, with Edmund Burke, that a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation.

Lincoln invented the American Dream, the idea that, whoever you are, wherever you come from, you can flourish and know that your children will have it better than you did. He ended slavery, of course, but on July 4, 1861, he told Congress that the fight to preserve the Union was about a more encompassing principle. The central idea of America was the promise of income mobility and the possibility for everyone, Black or white, to rise to a higher station in life.

From Lincoln on, Americas progressive conservatives supported policies that would permit free men to rise and knew that the American Dream didnt happen by itself, that it required progressive reforms things like good schools, sensible immigration policies and the rule of law.

But are we still the country of the American Dream? When polled in 2014, a majority of Americans said it had become more difficult to achieve the American Dream, and the evidence bears them out. Among highly developed countries, the U.S. ranks near the back of the pack in terms of intergenerational mobility.

Since the reasons for our decline can be laid at the door of Democratic education, immigration and regulatory policies, that should have been a leading issue for Republican candidates. But in 2016 only one of them spoke to it, and we elected him president.

There is a cyclical pattern in Republican policies. After a progressive moment, the party reverts to rightwing dogmas. So, it was after Lincolns assassination until the rise of Theodore Roosevelt at the cusp of the American Century. Roosevelt began his political career as an anti-corruption urban reformer who opposed a Democratic patronage machine. Back then, corruption was a Republican issue, and so it should be today. Its foolish to let House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) pass herself off as a champion of clean government when theres real work to be done by Republicans on closing the revolving door between Congress and K street and reforming political contributions by lobbyists.

Theodore Roosevelt called himself a progressive and said he was not afraid of being called a radical when it came to defending popular rule and a conservative when it came to reforming government in a cautious manner. Right-wingers tend to be Manicheans who think it all went to hell with Roosevelts embrace of a regulatory state. But then a lot of things needed regulating back then. Blaming TR for todays overregulation is like blaming the Chicago Fire on the guy who first rubbed two sticks together.

TRs progressive conservatism was distinctly Western in the sense of the first great progressive historian, Frederick Jackson Turner (18611932). What made Turner both a conservative and a progressive was his celebration of democracy and freedom, which he said were the gifts of the frontier. Our history was forged in the way in which America had constantly reinvented itself in its restless movement westward, even as Roosevelt became Mark Hannas damn cowboy when Roosevelt bought a ranch in the North Dakota badlands. The West was mobile and democratic, while the East was immobile and aristocratic, and that is how campaign finance reform, initiative and referendum laws and term limits emerged as progressive conservative policies.

After TR, the Republican Party turned right again, until Eisenhower in 1952. Ike called himself a modern Republican, but the progressive label is more apt. He wrote that the GOP would be sunk if it werent progressive and resisted calls to eliminate New Deal programs.

What followed Ike was another turn to the right, until Trump arrived. But now the GOP must ease him out. He lost in 2020 and would lose if he ran again. Flawed as they are, the Jan. 6 hearings might help by persuading his supporters that its time to move on. If so, the hearings, like a boomerang, might come back to hurt the Democrats. What would also help is a Republican Party that adopts Trumps policies, which just might persuade Trump not to run again.

F.H. Buckley is a Foundation Professor at the Antonin Scalia Law School at George Mason University. His newly-released book is Progressive Conservatism (Encounter Books, July 12, 2022).

Originally posted here:
How Republicans can build on Trumpism and become the party of progressive conservatism - The Hill

Revolving door record reached

After increasing year after year, a new record has been set for state employees who are required to notify of possible revolving door determinations where they left their job for a job with an employer in the private sector that does business with the state.

The Illinois Office of Executive Inspector General reports after remaining fairly consistent in the past fiscal years at about 180 determinations, the office recorded nearly 300 in the most recent fiscal year that ended June 30.

State sells Thompson Center

The state of Illinois has sold one of the states biggest office buildings. The James R. Thompson Center, considered by many as an eyesore in downtown Chicago, sold for $105 million to a real estate company that also announced a build-to-suit agreement with Google.

Viewed as operationally inefficient, state officials discussed selling the building for nearly two decades. The governor estimates the sale would save the state almost $1 billion over 30 years.

Libertarian withdraws from Secretary of State race

Libertarian Jesse White withdrew his candidacy for secretary of state Wednesday after his petition signatures were reportedly facing scrutiny.

White shares the same name as long-serving Secretary of State Jesse White, who is not seeking re-election. The Libertarian candidate has never held public office. The general election in Illinois is Nov. 8.

Illinois Manufacturers' Association wins recognition

The Illinois Manufacturers Association was recognized as the best manufacturing advocacy group in the country, winning the inaugural 2022 Leadership Award from the Conference of State Manufacturers Associations.

The IMA was recognized for efforts to build a workforce through investments in education and training, including a $7 million Manufacturing Jobs campaign aimed at attracting students, veterans and other individuals to the manufacturing sector.

Shot out windows being investigated

Police are searching for suspects after dozens of vehicles in Belleville were damaged by a pellet or BB gun.

The St. Clair County Sheriffs Office reports around 40 vehicles had one or more windows shot out. Police say it appears many of the vehicles were hit during the heavy rains that were passing through the area, which caused water damage as well.

Revolving door record reached

After increasing year after year, a new record has been set for state employees who are required to notify of possible revolving door determinations where they left their job for a job with an employer in the private sector that does business with the state.

The Illinois Office of Executive Inspector General reports after remaining fairly consistent in the past fiscal years at about 180 determinations, the office recorded nearly 300 in the most recent fiscal year that ended June 30.

Go here to see the original:
Illinois quick hits: White withdraws from race; Durbin tests positive for COVID - The Center Square

According to Sen. Mitt Romney (RUtah), America's current welfare policies have two major flaws: They penalize recipients who get married by reducing the benefits they're eligible for, and they don't do enough to help couples afford to have more kids.

"There's a growing gap between the number of children people say they want to have and the number they actually decide to have," he said during an event yesterday at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) in Washington, D.C. "Just to be clear here, I don't think the goal of policy should be to try to create incentives to have people have more children than they want, but instead should find a way to bridge the gap between what people would like to add to their family and what they're able to afford."

Attempting to address these issues, Romney in June released the Family Security Act 2.0, a proposal to send parents monthly checks of between $250 and $700 per child, beginning midway through a pregnancy. A household would need to have earned at least $10,000 the previous year to be eligible for the full benefit, a provision meant to keep families from dropping out of the work force entirely. The program would be "paid for" by reducing or eliminating various existing income tax breaks.

It's hard to fault efforts to resolve distortions introduced by previous federal policy, including the whoopsie-daisy of incentivizing low-income couples to remain unmarried. The idea that it's the government's job to help people have more kids rests on a more debatable assumptionnamely, that parents should not have to shoulder the full cost of raising future members of society.

Regardless of whether you buy that "positive externalities" argument, the federal government does spend billions each year on family programs. Given that these efforts are not likely to go away (however much libertarian purists might wish otherwise), it's worth considering whether Romney's proposal represents at least an incremental improvement over the status quo.

Both Scott Winship, AEI's director of poverty studies, and Robert Rector, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation who studies health and welfare policy, say Family Security 2.0 is indeed a step in the right direction. Each independently pointed to aspects of the program that are less than ideal from their perspectivefor example, do we want middle-class families to get used to receiving monthly checks from the federal government? But if the choice is between the existing amalgamation of tax breaks or the new consolidated benefit Romney wants to replace them with, they'll take the latter.

This calculation only works if the existing programs really are zeroed out to cover the costs of the new checks, of course. That's something Democrats are likely to resist, though Romney said during the AEI event that the "pay-fors" are nonnegotiable for him and his Republican co-sponsors. But from a libertarian perspective, such negotiations always entail the risk that the parties will settle on a compromise that adds rather than substitutes spending.

The tax breaks that would be eliminated, according to an info sheet from Romney's office, include the state and local tax deduction and the head of household filing status. In addition, the plan would reduce the family portion of the earned income tax credit. These changes would simplify a few commonly maligned "swiss-cheese" aspects of the revenue code, replacing them with direct cash transfers, which some libertarian economists consider preferable to other benefit types.

Part of what makes the Romney plan a good idea, according to Winship and Rector, is the addition of a work requirementthe condition that a household needs to have earned $10,000 the year before in order to qualify for the full amount. That provision, which was absent from the 1.0 version of Romney's bill, is in keeping with Bill Clintonera welfare reform, passed in response to concerns that no-strings checks sever people's connection to the labor force, drive up out-of-wedlock births, and generally worsen outcomes for kids.

Eliminating those bad incentives from the new version of the plan is not without downsides. In the short run, it means that some of the poorest children in America, those whose parents don't work, won't benefit from the program at all. (The addition of a work requirement also makes it more complex to administer, the progressive blogger Matt Bruenig pointed out, since the government must now track previous-year income levels and adjust each household's monthly payment accordingly.)

Romney sidesteps this objection by insisting that Family Security 2.0 isn't an anti-poverty measureit's family assistance. There are dozens of other programs meant to help poor Americans, he said at AEI, from food stamps to Medicaid. His plan looks to solve a different problem: Americans choosing for economic reasons to have fewer kids than they otherwise would like.

I question whether that's a good use of government dollars. But Romney's plan may still be better than what we have now.

Continued here:
Romney's Family Plan Isn't Great, but May Be Better Than the Alternatives - Reason

Andrew Yangs Forward Party is dead. In its place, rises the Forward Party but with Republicans. In this newly announced mega-group, simply called Forward, Yang is joined as co-chair of the hopeful third party contender by former Republican New Jersey Gov. Christine Todd Whitman. Former Rep. David Jolly, R-Fla., and former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff Miles Taylor are also involved in the new project, which seeks to upend Americas two-party system.

But in reading through their manifesto of moderation, I am forced to wonder if their supposed thinking outside the box is really thinking inside a much larger box? If that's the case, does this amalgam, this neutron star born of a collapsed political spectrum, go far enough in its mission? Or do we need to move past the tired idea theyve latched on to, that a third party is whats needed to shake up our system? The answer becomes clear once you take Forward's views to their obvious terminus: What America really needs to grow and thrive is a fourth party.

Yes, its true that Forward has no specific policies yet, as Reuters reported Wednesday. It is truly a blank slate on the issues facing the U.S., prepared to plant its flag in whatever a majority of Americans believe in the latest polling. This is befitting a party that holds moderation and centrism as core tenets. Only in comparing itself to the other two parties stances can it ever know what it believes, as a Washington Post op-ed describing the partys vision outlined.

What America really needs to grow and thrive is a fourth party.

On guns, for instance, most Americans dont agree with calls from the far left to confiscate all guns and repeal the Second Amendment, but theyre also rightfully worried by the far rights insistence on eliminating gun laws, Yang, Jolly and Whitman wrote in the Post. On climate change, most Americans dont agree with calls from the far left to completely upend our economy and way of life, but they also reject the far rights denial that there is even a problem. On abortion, most Americans dont agree with the far lefts extreme views on late-term abortions, but they also are alarmed by the far rights quest to make a womans choice a criminal offense.

Not once do they seek to clarify what the middle stance actually is on each of these issues and how that differs from what the Democratic Party is offering. They dont note how popular each of the ideas they list are within either party, nor that late-term abortion is not a medically accepted term. They dont bother to make clear that the far right holds one party firmly within its grip while the far left views they list are not embraced by any of the partys leaders. And even this morass of ambiguity does not do enough to decouple this new party from the divisions that grow deeper each day.

The problem with Forward is that it is still limited in how inclusive it can truly be. America requires a fourth party, one that doesnt just hide in the center, catering to the median voter; a party that is truly universal and doesnt shy away from encompassing literally all sides of an issue. Think the multiverse hijinks of Everything Everywhere All at Once but with the limitless possibility of policy all flowing through a single party.

A fourth party will bridge divides by including both the far right and far left under its umbrella, upholding even the most contradictory of views in the name of unity and freedom. Americas voters deserve nothing less than the I dont know, whatever you want for dinner is fine with me of politics. They demand the most meh of options, like the choice between a lukewarm salad and a sandwich where one side is the heel of the loaf. Americans dont need leaders with detailed ideas and specific policy goals that ensure the basic rights of every American. They need whatever makes them feel the least bad about putting their own interests first.

As Yangs hero Abraham Lincoln understood, a house divided among itself cannot stand. Thats why Lincoln and his running mate, Andrew Johnson, ran on a third-party ticket in 1864, a decision that had absolutely no negative consequences. Lincoln knew that only in trying to please literally everyone at all times can politicians heal our wounded country and make this broken-down house into a home.

To do that, we must eschew the sort of biased and binary labels that permeate our politics at every level: left and right; conservative and liberal; racist and not racist; basic human dignity and all-encroaching fascism. Only then can our country get back on the right track.

A fourth party would transcend politics by being truly apolitical.

A fourth party would transcend politics by being truly apolitical. For example, it would look at the divide on the matter of transgender rights and correctly diagnose that trans people clearly exist and should be allowed to thrive in peace. But it would also see that maybe we just shouldnt talk about them in public, like ever. A firm wag of our fingers at anyone who disagrees with either side of this matter would be appropriate. A big tent requires a big rug to sweep all of lifes pesky problems under in the name of civility.

This fourth party could be a true home for all disaffected independents who wish that the Democratic Party was just a bit more libertarian and that the Republican Party was just a bit less vocal about its willingness to let children go hungry rather than increasing taxes on the wealthy. It can be a place for the pro-business community members who are tired of former President Donald Trump and the pro-business community members who are tired of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. A fourth party can be a place where wealthy donors are free to set their money on fire at a monthly pace that befits their own individual hedge fund stakes.

America is at a tipping point. Only through bold, daring inaction can our great experiment possibly hope to survive. Yang and his former GOP cohorts are thinking too small in their attempt to replace the status quo with an even statuser quo. We must commit ourselves fully to a policy of treating even the most heinous ideas as legitimate discourse and respecting all lives devoted to twirling toward freedom. Only then will we live in a country where all Americans can feel the smug sense of superiority that comes with voting for a candidate that has no chance of winning.

Hayes Brown is a writer and editor for MSNBC Daily, where he helps frame the news of the day for readers. He was previously at BuzzFeed News and holds a degree in international relations from Michigan State University.

Read the original post:
Andrew Yang's third party Forward isn't enough to transcend politics - MSNBC

In a career that has spanned seven decadesand included classic shows and movies such as Monty Python's Flying Circus, Fawlty Towers, Life of Brian, and A Fish Called Wandathe comedian John Cleesehas uproariously and relentlessly satirized politics and religion while stretching the boundaries of decorum and good taste like so manysilly walks.

Now 82, Cleesewho studied law at Cambridgehas recently set his sights on political correctness andwokeism, which he says are the enemy not only of humor but of creative thinking in all areas of human activity.

I caught up with him at FreedomFest, the annual July gathering of libertarians in Las Vegas. Cleese was the keynote speaker, there to discuss creativity, which was the subject of his 2020 book of the same title. It's a quick and excellent read, summarizing a wide range of psychological research on the topic and drawing from his own experiences.

It's a myth "that creativity is something you have to be born with," he argues. "Anyone can be creative." He also contends that "you can teach creativity," writing, "you can teach people how to create circumstances in which they will become creative."

After giving a talk on the attitudes and habits of mind he believes are necessary for creativity to 2,500 attendees at FreedomFest, I interviewed Cleese from the main stage about the importance of freedom of thought and expression when it comes to being creative, why wokeism is the enemy of that, and why creativity is so important to progress and civilization.

View post:
John Cleese: Wokeism Is the Enemy of Comedyand Creativity - Reason